This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2]

The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9]

What did Washington believe liberalism as? And how does that compare to today's definition or definitions? (as the title of the thread indirectly provides one as "filthy") If there are so many definitions and you cannot provide one, then Washington's statement is moot for the purposes of the point you are making.

Because if you can't compare or link liberalism as its defined today with how liberalism was defined by Washington then.........

Game, set, match.

Straw Man made quite the fool of himself in this thread. I think Washington would be disgusted to see what both parties have become.

What did Washington believe liberalism as? And how does that compare to today's definition or definitions? (as the title of the thread indirectly provides one as "filthy") If there are so many definitions and you cannot provide one, then Washington's statement is moot for the purposes of the point you are making.

Because if you can't compare or link liberalism as its defined today with how liberalism was defined by Washington then.........

I used filthy because "lib" today is only used as a negative term and it's completely defined by the right.

everything is a negative

According to the right Libs are weak on defense, want big goverment, want the government to control your lifelife etc...

none of that is actualy true or provable but that's the type of thing that's associated with Liberal

then again Conservatives tell us they are fiscally conservative, for smaller government and want to stay out of your personal life.

None of that is true either and in fact most of it is the complete opposite of the truth

I can't really give you a good definition of what a liberal or conservative are today

I do think Washington was very liberal in his time and would probably still be considered liberal today by our negative definition of the word. (If anyone actually bothers to read this far before responding I will give examples)

I used filthy because "lib" today is only used as a negative term and it's completely defined by the right.

everything is a negative

According to the right Libs are weak on defense, want big goverment, want the government to control your lifelife etc...

none of that is actualy true or provable but that's the type of thing that's associated with Liberal

then again Conservatives tell us they are fiscally conservative, for smaller government and want to stay out of your personal life.

None of that is true either and in fact most of it is the complete opposite of the truth

I can't really give you a good definition of what a liberal or conservative are today

I do think Washington was very liberal in his time and would probably still be considered liberal today by our negative definition of the word. (If anyone actually bothers to read this far before responding I will give examples)

and what makes you think washington would be liberal by todays standards?

Can anyone here tell me one GOOD thing you associate with the word LIB or even LIBERAL?

what does that have to do with your goof in this thread?

what was your point of posting that quote straw?

regulation is good to a certain point and protection of civil liberties is as well(but then again conservatives agree with those as well to a certain point) problem is that some liberals takes that to an extreme and infringe on others rights in order to get their ways...how about conservatives for you straw, name any good things?

regulation is good to a certain point and protection of civil liberties is as well(but then again conservatives agree with those as well to a certain point) problem is that some liberals takes that to an extreme and infringe on others rights in order to get their ways...how about conservatives for you straw, name any good things?

can't think of even one "good" thing can you

just to review

I think Washington in many ways was a liberal in his time and would be called a liberal today

regulation is good to a certain point and protection of civil liberties is as well(but then again conservatives agree with those as well to a certain point) problem is that some liberals takes that to an extreme and infringe on others rights in order to get their ways...how about conservatives for you straw, name any good things?

I swear a degenerative brain disorder that is rapidly progressing ::)now why do you believe he would be considered a liberal today straw?

sorry I missed that

so you're saying you associate "regulation" and "protection of civil liberties" as a something liberal?

I believe by todays standards Washington would be considered weak on national defense. He was against getting involved in foreign wars and totally against torture of prisoners. If he held those views today he would be a called a "lib"

so you're saying you associate "regulation" and "protection of civil liberties" as a something liberal?

I believe by todays standards Washington would be considered weak on national defense. He was against getting involved in foreign wars and totally against torture of prisoners. If he held those views today he would be a called a "lib"

LOL youre really not taking into account much are you? it was alot easier to ignore other countries back then, remember isolationism? this was real big up till WW2...different times, youre taking his opinion in a situation that was totally different and trying to apply to todays situation...

again your focusing on the way an idea presents itself straw not the reasoning behind it, what was his reasoning for being against "torture" what was considered "torture" in his day?....LOL he may not have considered water boarding torture.... LMAO

LOL youre really not taking into account much are you? it was alot easier to ignore other countries back then, remember isolationism? this was real big up till WW2...different times, youre taking his opinion in a situation that was totally different and trying to apply to todays situation...

again your focusing on the way an idea presents itself straw not the reasoning behind it, what was his reasoning for being against "torture" what was considered "torture" in his day?....LOL he may not have considered water boarding torture.... LMAO

Torture in Washingtons time was just like it is today and they were fighting a real war on our land for the life and death of the country. If anything the stakes were much higher then than they are now:

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

Torture in Washingtons time was just like it is today and they were fighting a real war on our land for the life and death of the country. If anything the stakes were much higher then than they are now:

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

please give links to torture being the same in washingtons day as it is today...waterboarding specifically...

INJURE INJURE INJURE a prisoner....waterboarding is injuring a person?

Straw - if GW was as liberal as you claim, please answer the following:

1. Why didn't he advocate gay members be enlisted into the Continental Army?

2. Why did he support a war over a tax that by todays' standards in nothing compared to what the modern "liberals" push for?

3. Why did GW seek to avoid engaging in foreign entanglements when it is the modern day liberals who want us to sign international treaties binding our nation to all sorts of nonsense? and this is not Dem v GOP, by ideology.

I used filthy because "lib" today is only used as a negative term and it's completely defined by the right.

everything is a negative

According to the right Libs are weak on defense, want big goverment, want the government to control your lifelife etc...

none of that is actualy true or provable but that's the type of thing that's associated with Liberal

then again Conservatives tell us they are fiscally conservative, for smaller government and want to stay out of your personal life.

None of that is true either and in fact most of it is the complete opposite of the truth

I can't really give you a good definition of what a liberal or conservative are today

I do think Washington was very liberal in his time and would probably still be considered liberal today by our negative definition of the word. (If anyone actually bothers to read this far before responding I will give examples)

Some of that negative view is brought on my extreme liberals and conservative spin agreed. If you think about it libs kind of give them selves a bad name. But if you look at Washington's statement it does sound more like modern day conservatives.

Some of that negative view is brought on my extreme liberals and conservative spin agreed. If you think about it libs kind of give them selves a bad name. But if you look at Washington's statement it does sound more like modern day conservatives.

I dont' see it that way.

Like I stated previously, "LIB" is a pejorative term in our country and it's definition is soley created by the right

If Liberal in the late 1700's = Conservative today then how do you explain current day conservatives who have exploded the size of goverment, run up the national debt, tried to take away civil liberties (aka Patriot Act), tried to insert their own values into everyone's private life, resisted and fought equality under the law (opposed civil rights, gay rights,etc..), pursued wars of choice, etc.....

Like I stated previously, "LIB" is a pejorative term in our country and it's definition is soley created by the right

If Liberal in the late 1700's = Conservative today then how do you explain current day conservatives who have exploded the size of goverment, run up the national debt, tried to take away civil liberties (aka Patriot Act), tried to insert their own values into everyone's private life, resisted and fought equality under the law (opposed civil rights, gay rights,etc..), pursued wars of choice, etc.....

Today's modern Conservative is nothing like Washington's Liberal

LOL brain child you could point to both parties that do that...its what the conservatives believe and what liberals believe that is the point...we are talking conservative or liberal principles not actions of so called libs or cons...

you really havent given any reason why washington would be considered a liberal today...both liberals and conservatives were isolationinst prior to WW2 for the most part...the only person who I know that believes along those lines today is ron paul A CONSERVATIVE...an actual conservative